Response to "Visualizing English"

In “Visualizing English: Recognizing the Hybrid, Literacy of Visual and Verbal Authorship on the Web” Craig Stroupe presents the issue of the effects hypertext and the visual nature of the web has on “traditional” or standard English rhetoric. I appreciate Stroupe’s clear narration of the “mulling over” process he went through to illustrate both sides of the issue. His breakdown of both sides of the argument for and against the digitalization of English and rhetoric was, I think, effective and thoroughly researched.

In the article, Stroupe quotes an interesting line from Elizabeth Castro’s Netscape manual: “The beauty—and peril—of the World Wide Web is that everyone can publish their own information quickly and easily. As such, the Web is the fastest growing area in the computer world today. Each month thousands of news pages are added, by huge companies and private citizens alike” (612).  

 

I absolutely agree with this statement and think it is still relevant in 2010. Managing content is one of the major challenges faced by content designers/developers/managers. There’s just so much out there. This is probably why traditional English scholars are hesitant to embrace the Web. Traditional written text has to go through “qualified peers” or gatekeepers for validation in order to be published in journals on and offline. This process acts as a form of check and balance and maintains the exclusivity of what is deemed as good rhetoric. The Web completely shatters this. Any old “John Doe” can publish on the web whether or not it is factual, well researched, and subjective.

 

What about (“unskilled”) bloggers being hired by reputable news papers because of their web publication?  They may not know the “conventions” of rhetoric, but qualified journalists and editors are validating their skill and ability by hiring them and giving them a more prominent place on the web to display their discourse. Without the Web and applications like blogs this may never have been possible. Still, bloggers face a fight from “purists” and are not being compensated like traditional journalists. See one article I found about this issue here for further details. 

 

Design is an issue in composition but it is not the real. As we discussed in class, everything is designed. A research paper is designed; it’s just at a different end of the design spectrum. The issue is acceptance of web/hypertext discourse; it’s about classism (as Camille stated). It’s about maintaining the status quo and controlling who is able to a convey message.  It will never change because of the prejudice of the “conventionalizing reader.” Still, a case can be made for conventionalism. To become “unconventional” you must have some knowledge of what is conventional.  (Perhaps?)